U.S. Rep. Tlaib rejects West Bank visit, citing Israel's 'oppressive conditions'

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

So why did they change their minds so readily? Two racists Netanyahu and Trump in cahoots with each other helping each other to re-election. And they have the Chutzpah of accusing Omar and Tlaib of falsely claiming some US politicians have dual loyalties.

 

The Israeli government changed its stance following Trump's interference. This was covered and commented on extensively. That you wish to engage in some half-cooked theory is a choice. You repeating yet another one of Omar's tropes is dully noted - even if doesn't quite makes sense.

[dexterm]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Falsely equating between BDS and criticism is a choice. But it isn't as if all critics (Jewish or otherwise) of Israel are barred from visiting the country. You try to paint the BDS narrative as legitimate criticism. There are many who do not share your position. And again, it is only in your imagination that visitation rights are coupled with hostile political activity in the country one visits.

 

The original visit of the two congresswomen was approved. The narrative you push seems to ignore that.

Nonsense. Israel has a record of slowly expelling NGOs by not renewing the visas of anyone who supports Palestinian human rights.

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Israeli government changed its stance following Trump's interference. This was covered and commented on extensively. That you wish to engage in some half-cooked theory is a choice. You repeating yet another one of Omar's tropes is dully noted - even if doesn't quite makes sense.

You can't see Trump's dual loyalty..you jest. So what do you make of David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, who tweeted that his government “supports and respects” the Israeli decision to bar entry to elected representatives of the American people.

The same Friedman who, along with Jared Kushner, sends $2m annually to support illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
 

Whose side are they on? US Congress or the Knesset? 

[malibukid]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

If one thing can be said about Israel, it is that they lost sight of the big picture long ago, rarely taking the correct moral position on an issue, and are an apartheid state, through and through. Their inability to handle any level of dissent reminds one of South Africa, at the height of that ugly regime. Israel is not a beacon of light for the Jews of the world. Quite the opposite. They are full time moral transgressors. I like Tlaib, and Omar. They speak to power. They often speak truth. They may be extreme, but they are exactly what Trump advertised himself as being, prior to assuming the power of the presidency. His outsider status went out the window as soon as he started appointing Wall St. execs, ex oil company execs, and lobbyists to important positions. He proved right then and there, that there was zero sincerity behind his infamous campaign slogan 'drain the swamp", as he got rid of the seven foot alligators, and proceeded to re-populate the swamp with 15 foot crocodiles, and wage his war on the people of America and the world. If you are in the top 5% he represents your interests. The rest? Well, it is apparent by his s policies and rhetoric, that he despises both people without wealth, and people of color. His administration is 100% bought and paid for by American corporations. 

 

On the other hand, these junior congresswomen, are not owned by corporate interests, and they say what is on their mind. How refreshing is that? And someone standing up to the goombah policies of a nation that likes to call itself a democracy, yet shudders every time it encounters the slightest bit of criticism and dissent, and reverts to acting like a hurt juvenile? Israel needs the pushback. And I say all of this as an American Jew, so do not get started with the nonsensical baiting. Do not even bother. I have heard it all of my adult life. Jews are not permitted to criticize Israel policy. Period. 

many liberal Jewish people in America are in fact fed up with israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and prefer to distance themselves from the orthodox Jews who are claiming land for settlements.  Israel is Donald Trumps lap dog. 

[BestB]

But the most interesting part is she has not seen her grandmother in over 10 years.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Nonsense. Israel has a record of slowly expelling NGOs by not renewing the visas of anyone who supports Palestinian human rights.

 

Could you kindly stop moving the goal posts and bring up any odd issue with each post? I'm aware that you see these topics as bash fests, but still.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

You can't see Trump's dual loyalty..you jest. So what do you make of David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, who tweeted that his government “supports and respects” the Israeli decision to bar entry to elected representatives of the American people.

The same Friedman who, along with Jared Kushner, sends $2m annually to support illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
 

Whose side are they on? US Congress or the Knesset? 

 

What I can see is you making allegations, without much support or even logic to back them up. Pretty much a standard. Donald Trump's interest in this is more to do with USA politics. David Friedman's comment is pretty much an accurate description of Trump's position - not sure what you're on about.

 

You can argue that Trump's position is a dangerous precedent, that it's wrong and whatnot. I'll agree. What you're actually going on about is something else - and that's nonsense.

 

And regardless of your made up US Congress vs. the Knesset bit, it isn't even remotely as if all of the Congress is behind the two congresswomen.

 

Again, can't address the issue at hand, hence picking up any odd thread useful to bash. Same old.

[IAMHERE]

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

'oppressive conditions'

Her home district meets that criteria. 

[Baerboxer]

10 hours ago, Tug said:

I’m going to stand with the lady on this one on principal not that I agree with her ideas Israel should be bigger than this 

 

You mean write to Israel requesting a humanitarian visit, pleading for one, and stating she'll abide by the conditions. Then when they accept, refusing to accept their acceptance claiming it's against her principles!

 

Political grandstanding and blatant grandstanding from this douche-bag.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, BestB said:

But the most interesting part is she has not seen her grandmother in over 10 years.

 

Clearly her political agenda far outweighs any thoughts or concern for granny.

 

The old "she'd sell her own grandmother" seems somewhat appropriate!

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You mean write to Israel requesting a humanitarian visit, pleading for one, and stating she'll abide by the conditions. Then when they accept, refusing to accept their acceptance claiming it's against her principles!

 

Political grandstanding and blatant grandstanding from this douche-bag.

I would say applying, not pleading.

You know the conditions she agreed to beforehand, if any, and the ones she rejected?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I would say applying, not pleading.

You know the conditions she agreed to beforehand, if any, and the ones she rejected?

 

You can find her application on the internet. The conditions were made public as well. It pretty much amounts to not abusing the trip to further her politics and carrying on the usual provocations.

[BestB]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I would say applying, not pleading.

You know the conditions she agreed to beforehand, if any, and the ones she rejected?

Here is a funny part , why did she not mention the unacceptable conditions? 

 

Its like crying you have been fined by the police but failing to mention you were driving with no license and no registration and ran a red light. 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Here is a funny part , why did she not mention the unacceptable conditions? 

 

Its like crying you have been fined by the police but failing to mention you were driving with no license and no registration and ran a red light. 

Apples and oranges.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can find her application on the internet. The conditions were made public as well. It pretty much amounts to not abusing the trip to further her politics and carrying on the usual provocations.

And those were the conditions on application or the later ones?

[BestB]

18 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Clearly her political agenda far outweighs any thoughts or concern for granny.

 

The old "she'd sell her own grandmother" seems somewhat appropriate!

I have to disagree , it’s more that this trip had nothing to do with seeing her family but all to do with yet another provocation, which may come back to bite her in the backside .

 

besides a few Israel haters anyone with half a brain can now clearly see the plan and her true colours 

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Apples and oranges.

How is that? Let’s hear it 

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And those were the conditions on application or the later ones?

And once again, why not mention it ? Surely would help her cause to make Israel look bad , but will wait on your apples and oranges theory

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, malibukid said:

many liberal Jewish people in America are in fact fed up with israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and prefer to distance themselves from the orthodox Jews who are claiming land for settlements.  Israel is Donald Trumps lap dog. 

I would say quite the opposite. Donald Trump is Israels' lap dog. He is Mr. Obedient. What do you want me to do Bibi? I will do anything for you. It helps me to maintain a false sense of being religious, and allows my evangelical base to have faith in me. Little do they know I have never prayed in my life. Why would I? The very concept of a Divine Being, that is bigger and more important than me would never be something I could grasp or understand, nor embrace. Certainly you get that, right Bibi?

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And those were the conditions on application or the later ones?

 

A brief outline of these conditions was aired by Israel Minister of the Interior after the initial visit was scrapped. It was to the effect that if she was to request a visit based on humanitarian needs and refrain from the expected provocations, it will go through. Next she sent an application, in which she promised to abide by any restrictions. Her request was approved and then she went on to reject the whole thing.

 

You're over complicating things. It's pretty straightforward.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I would say quite the opposite. Donald Trump is Israels' lap dog. He is Mr. Obedient. What do you want me to do Bibi? I will do anything for you. It helps me to maintain a false sense of being religious, and allows my evangelical base to have faith in me. Little do they know I have never prayed in my life. Why would I? The very concept of a Divine Being, that is bigger and more important than me would never be something I could grasp or understand, nor embrace. Certainly you get that, right Bibi?

 

You do have a wild imagination. This have very little to do with the power balance between the two. Or even with Trump's behavior and actions when it comes to Israel.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A brief outline of these conditions was aired by Israel Minister of the Interior after the initial visit was scrapped. It was to the effect that if she was to request a visit based on humanitarian needs and refrain from the expected provocations, it will go through. Next she sent an application, in which she promised to abide by any restrictions. Her request was approved and then she went on to reject the whole thing.

 

You're over complicating things. It's pretty straightforward.

There are supposed to be new conditions imposed on the visit, conditions only mentioned on approval. You're only referring to the conditions mentioned on application.

[BestB]

48 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There are supposed to be new conditions imposed on the visit, conditions only mentioned on approval. You're only referring to the conditions mentioned on application.

And the new ones are?

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, BestB said:

And the new ones are?

That was my question.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

There are supposed to be new conditions imposed on the visit, conditions only mentioned on approval. You're only referring to the conditions mentioned on application.

 

I wasn't referring "only to the conditions mentioned in the application" - the application included a general statement by Tlaib that she'll accept any conditions imposed.

 

The initial comments form the Minister of Interior were pretty much what things amounted to - that she refrain from from political shenanigans, or advocate BDS goals during her visit. Then came her application, in which she accepted any terms which will be imposed. Application approved, and promptly rejected.

 

As far as I'm aware there weren't any extras. What did change was that various Palestinian groups took to social media and blasted her for "surrendering" to Israel. This seems to have brought about the rejection.

[BestB]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That was my question.

I thought you had apples and oranges theory. Make up your mind.

 

either it’s apples and oranges or she is as pathetic as they come 

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, BestB said:

I thought you had apples and oranges theory. Make up your mind.

 

either it’s apples and oranges or she is as pathetic as they come 

You're making absolutely no sense.

[BestB]

37 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're making absolutely no sense.

Really? Which part do you struggle with?

 

PS. Still waiting on the apples and oranges if you do not mind 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, BestB said:

Really? Which part do you struggle with?

 

PS. Still waiting on the apples and oranges if you do not mind 

Yes, I do mind, I am not a primary school teacher. If you don't understand that a comparison between someone getting a traffic fine, complaining about the fine even though driving without license, and someone applying for a visa, but when it is granted rejects due to additional requirements, is comparing apples and oranges I am sorry.

[BestB]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, I do mind, I am not a primary school teacher. If you don't understand that a comparison between someone getting a traffic fine, complaining about the fine even though driving without license, and someone applying for a visa, but when it is granted rejects due to additional requirements, is comparing apples and oranges I am sorry.

So what were additional requirements? You the only one bringing it up , no one else , not including your beloved one.

 

so what apples and oranges ?